The two new cases were those of Ahmet Akin OZKIN and 31 Others v. Turkey (21689/93) and Ismail ERTAK v. Turkey (20764/92). The first involved the alleged destruction of the village of Ormanici. The second dealt with allegations of the disappearance and alleged death of Mehmet Ertak, son of the applicant, while in the custody of Turkish authorities. Details of the allegations are below.

Ahmet Akin OZKIN and 31 others v. Turkey: The applicants, who were all resident of the village of Ormanici in Sirnak province, allege that on 20 February 1993 Gendarme soldiers opened fire on the village of Ormanici. One child was killed during the attack; another died later when a he found a hand grenade which had been left behind. Subsequent to the attack, on the same day, many of the village houses were burned, and the livestock belonging to the villagers was killed. The villagers were forced to by the soldiers to sit in the centre of the town in the mud all day. In addition, several villagers were taken into custody; some of them were tortured and one, Ibrahim Ekinci, died as a result of the torture that he received in custody. While the authorities claimed that they were in hospital, several villagers were actually detained under guard for 47 days and no access was allowed to them. The applicants allege violations of Article 2 (right to life: related to the deaths of two children during the raid and one adult, Ibrahim Ekinci), Article 3 (prohibition of ill treatment: related to the treatment of villagers on the day of the attack and the torture of villagers in custody), Article 5 (right to liberty: related to detention of villagers), Article 6 (right to access judicial system ), and Article 8 (right to respect for family life: related to the destruction of their homes).

Ismail ERTAK v. Turkey (20764/92): The applicant alleges that his son, Mehmet Ertak, was taken into police custody on 20 August 1992, and allegedly killed during interrogation. An acquaintance of Mehmet confirms that he spent one day and one night in police custody with Mehmet. Mr. Ertak enquired with the authorities about his son on several occasions, to no effect. He was eventually told that his son had never been in policy custody. The applicant brings complaints under Article 2 (right to life: related to the alleged death in custody of his son, Mehmet)